Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4013129" data-attributes="member: 51942">Leaving Flurry of Blows aside, there's a terminology problem of "unarmed strikes" vs. "unarmed attacks".Why would a unarmed touch attack not be performed with an unarmed strike?  In general, it's not specified with what weapon a touch attack is performed.  There are some exceptions - for example if you use a spiked chain to trip an opponent, you're trying to touch him with the spiked chain.  If you're not using a (real) weapon, you're attacking unarmed (and hence provoke an attack of opportunity.  There exist game rules for making attacks while unarmed, namely "unarmed strikes".The game-mechanics weapon "unarmed strike" isn't a weapon in the normal usage of the word.  However, it's treated as one mechanically, especially if you have the improved unarmed strike feat.  On the other hand, Grapple is not a weapon - neither mechanically, nor "normally".  Weapon Focus (Grapple) makes less sense than Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike).  It's in the PHB, but it's extremely ill-defined.  What exactly would Weapon Focus apply to?  Only the initial touch attack?  What if you had an exotic weapon with which to perform grapple attacks (not entirely hypothetical - the dragonchain from RHoD allows this), which weapon focus would apply - or even both?  Is "grapple" a light weapon?  The presumed "grapple" weapon is, AFAIK mentioned nowhere else.Then I wonder - if you attack unarmed, what game-mechanical weapon are you using - none?  Or are you using an unarmed "attack"?  If you're attacking without a game-mechanical weapon, that means you can't use weapon focus, you can't enchant it, and there are probably any number of other places in the rules in which the implicit assumption is made that there is some weapon you're attacking with.Even the rules-text of the feat "Improved Unarmed Strike" taken completely by itself fails to distinguish clearly between "attacking unarmed" and an "unarmed strike".  Apart from the fact that the feat's very name refers to unarmed strikes yet grants benefits to all unarmed attacks, the text also fails to distinguish the two.SRD Improved Unarmed Strike extract:"Benefit You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Normal Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.Emphasis mine.  The feat (amongst other things) causes you to be considered armed - when?  According to the "benefit" section, the feat improves your situation whenever you attack unarmed, whereas the "normal" section speaks merely of attacking with unarmed strikes.The rules don't distinguish between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes.  Unsurprisingly, they tend to use the words "unarmed strike" if you're merely trying to strike and opponent, and the words "unarmed attack" when speaking in more general terms of any number of attacks beyond a simple damage dealing strike.Unless you're some weird psion, you can't trip someone with the power of your mind.  You might use a natural weapon with the "Trip" ability, or you could use a special weapon (such as a spiked chain).  If you aren't using any of these special means, then with what are you making that initial touch attack?  I think it's an "unarmed attack".Unless you're some weird psion, you can't grapple someone with the power of your mind.  You might use a natural weapon with the "Improved Grab" ability, or you could use a special weapon (such as found in some splatbooks).  If you aren't using any of these special means, then with what are you making that initial touch attack?  I think it's an "unarmed attack".Of course, if you're making an unarmed attack and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you're considered armed - but with what?Whether you want to draw a distinction between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes in your game or not, it's clear that the authors definitely weren't clear on the distinction themselves.  That's not to directly say they didn't want a distinction, but that they failed to make it clearly and consistently.  Desert Gled is being polite when he calls this an "editing fiasco": I don't think it's a textual issue, but rather that the issue was never clarified internally in the first place.  Since D&D redefines common English words, it's easy to conceive a miscommunication about such things.The question then becomes how to interpret the rules that are obviously nebulous.Does weapon focus (spiked chain) apply to touch attacks such as those to trip someone?  It does.  Consistency suggests that weapon focus (unarmed) should apply to touch attacks to initiate a trip attempt.  If better spiked-chain training allows a spiked chain wielder to connect slightly more frequently, should it not be able to allow a unarmed combatant to connect slightly more frequently as well?  Weapon Focus doesn't apply only to straightforward weapon "strikes" but to any attack made with the weapon.  The unarmed version should do the same.Does Weapon Finesse apply to unarmed attacks?  Unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, but unarmed attacks aren't mentioned.  Again, making the distinction isn't good; you should allow weapon finesse to work for unarmed attacks.  Otherwise you might get the nonsensical situation in which a character finds it easier to strike a creature for damage, than to merely touch a creature.The rules concerning unarmed strikes/attacks are unclear.  Choose whatever makes the most sense to you.  I feel that if flurry of blows could conceivably be used to make multiple trip attempts with a kama, it could be used to make multiple trip attempts unarmed.Flurry of Blows can only be combined with the full-attack action.  Technically, a full attack action is not possible during a grapple.  This doesn't seem to be a merely twist of words; for example, it's explicitly forbidden to attack with multiple light weapons even if you could, during a grapple.  On the other hand, the RotG seems to think that you could use multiple natural weapons in a grapple, even though I can't see any support for that (anybody?).  I would not allow flurry of blows during a grapple - but would for initiating a grapple....and...No kidding <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /></blockquote>

Verification